Maou Gakuin upgrade : Orders as Logical negations !!?

Ddzn · Sunday at 17:46

There had been two prior attempts for upgrading Orders and some characters to Paraconsistent Physiology and both CRTs suffered from either a lack of proper explanation or trying to inject too much information in one thread.

So while keeping those cases in mind and considering the fact that the standards for dualities have gone through recent revisions as to how they should be argued for, we divided the argument for PCP into different parts and this CRT is the part that was made to establish just general orders being Logical dualities.

It's a step by step breakdown of the verse mechanics to help readers understand why order qualifies for the current standards of duality.
So it is going to be a bit of a lengthy read, therefore I suggest everyone to take their time to go through the blog in a proper order from start to end. Skipping any sections might make the conclusion confusing and may leave a blank in your mind, which we don't hope to happen.

Here is the blog...

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:Ddzn/Logical_Negations_Order

Agree:
Neautral:
Disagree:

ReasonedZebra834 · Sunday at 18:03

Ultimuru · Sunday at 18:18

Agree fr

Hecky2222 · Sunday at 18:22

Ye checks out, previous threads lacked lot context + misunderstood PCP by just giving opposing dualities. I see by broader context they are indeed logical contradictions.

EldemadeDityjon · Sunday at 19:11

Well this was a wank Promised 2000 years ago. So I agree.

RemaxG1 · Sunday at 19:20

No complaints here I obviously I agree to this wank

CongratulatorySnail399 · Sunday at 19:33

It does seem good. Although I’m a bit skeptical as the scans don’t explicitly show them as life and non life. Just opposites opposing concepts and what you say for each scan doesn’t really match 1:1. Just my opinion on this crt. Great work.

Ddzn · Sunday at 20:36

CongratulatorySnail399 said:
It does seem good. Although I’m a bit skeptical as the scans don’t explicitly show them as life and non life. Just opposites opposing concepts and what you say for each scan doesn’t really match 1:1. Just my opinion on this crt. Great work.

Well the blog does establish a clear relationship between life and non-life through the framework of logical negations. That's why its mentioned "this a cosmological duality working with the underlying principle of logical negation" in the very start.

If you read thoroughly you’ll see that each pair like Creation and Destruction, or Birth and Termination functions as strict opposites that define each other. I don’t think there is a need for a direct life and non life term.

WyX319 · Sunday at 20:59

Well unc, pretty well constructed tbh even the coin mechanic alone ("birth existing = termination literally cannot and vice versa" part) is essentially LNC and LEM stated within the blog, so far I agree with all of it

CongratulatorySnail399 · Sunday at 21:10

Ddzn said:
Well the blog does establish a clear relationship between life and non-life through the framework of logical negations. That's why its mentioned "this a cosmological duality working with the underlying principle of logical negation" in the very start.

If you read thoroughly you’ll see that each pair like Creation and Destruction, or Birth and Termination functions as strict opposites that define each other. I don’t think there is a need for a direct life and non life term.

yeah but I’m just not to entirely convinced by the premise. Yeah orders are opposites and all but some of the scans contradict the premise you stated at the beginning of the blog.

Such as logical negations not being complimentary in which a later scan showed the author stating orders are complimentary, another contradiction in my opinion is a scan orders are two halves of one whole even though the beginning of the blog stated logical negations have no middle ground like “warmth” in which the entire whole of both orders could be the middle ground and another scan states the universe is supposed to cycle between life and death if the “balance” between them is maintained. Which is a clear contradiction to what the start of the blog says as there isn’t supposed to be a middle ground.

Anyways I will wait for more arguments to see where this goes, you can put me down for neutral.

Deonment · Sunday at 21:25

This is genuinely just classical duality all over again lmao
Yin-Yang, Active-Passive looking ahh
Anyways, no, the closest it gets to it is with the gods of the order of abortion and order of birth not being able to manifest when the other is and whole single source, two aspects stuff, but beyond that, this is genuinely just classical duality, I'm pretty sure I could find classical taoist texts that effectively say the same thing kek.
It's close, but absolutely not enough, mainly as this quote directly says

Wenzel nodded. “Even among the gods of the firmament, the two of us are special. We are two views of the same order, two sides of a single coin, two sisters that can never face each other.”
It was impossible for both goddesses to exist at the same time; just like a coin, only one side—one goddess—could be seen at any time.

That state of being I called out as being part of what is close is something explicitly stated to be unique to them, so whatever they state they exhibit doesn't cross scale to the rest
After that, Birth and Termination aren't functional as a logical duality either. Termination, as a process pretty cleanly can only happen in relation to a birth, or conception, but honestly, that doesn't seem to be a relevant distinction here, rather than being an independent process which can manifest outside of the death of a newborn, Termination can only follow Birth, which is absolutely an issue in the context of marking these as a logical duality. A and ~A as phenomena are wholly independent of their negation beyond the obvious; if A does not exist, then ~A is absolutely capable of being true or false without issue, and vice versa, and with Termination only being capable of following Birth, then if someone is terminated as a result of said function, then both events are simultaneously true and that's a contradiction if they are A and ~A.
Coming back around to those independence statements for a second, yeah, A and ~A, while defined in relation to each other, do not actually care about the other's existential status. They only if the logic behind their opposite is them is true or false, and then they negate that and are the other state. Beyond that space doesn't care if not-space exists and vice versa lmao. To extend this even further, the destruction of an order is certainly a flat false upon the theoretical state of its existence, and yet eventually the other half will collapse/cease to be and similarly fall into another false state, which is another contradiction, so they just can't be.
Beyond that the behaviour of Destruction and Creation is nowhere beyond the level of contrary dualities, so that's nothing there
And the rest really falls apart with what I've pointed out above, so it is what it is

CongratulatorySnail399 · Sunday at 22:33

Alright, now that i've had the time to read it fully, i'm now leaning towards disagreement. It's basically what @Deonment said plus; your blog is contradicting itself. Plus a few other things. I'll be using quotes for stuff from your blog. I probably copy-pasted something wrongly and caused glitches, so sorry about that

I. The Perfect Binary Toggle (Mutually Exclusive and Jointly Exhaustive)

Their powers function like a strict mechanical toggle where one completely replaces the other:

If I couldn’t remember both Militia’s sister and the Goddess of Destruction, it was possible that they were the same person. The younger sister of the Goddess of Creation could be Abernyu, the Goddess of Destruction. The Goddess of Creation’s power was the Moon of Creation, while her sister’s was the Sun of Destruction. When the moon rose, the sun fell, and vice versa. If this was true, it would explain why Militia couldn’t meet her sister.

—

Click to expand...

The phrase "and vice versa" proves there is a strict binary relationship here. When Creation is active, Destruction must recede. When Destruction is active, Creation must recede. There is no middle ground, no "stasis" state, and no overlap. They are perfectly synchronized opposites, where they both cannot be true or false at the same time, yet a state must be either true or false at any given time.

This strict binary relationship is further proven by a concrete scenario where the universe's internal calculations are explicitly detailed, where every single entry into the system (+1) is perfectly and immediately bound to an exact, corresponding inverse operator (-1). There are no "independent" or stray lives that exist outside this binary equation.

Life is supposed to cycle through destruction and creation if the balance between them is maintained. That means if the orders of destruction and creation are equal, there should be as many lives born as there are lives that die or perish. But if the world is headed towards destruction, where are the missing lives disappearing to?

—[URL='https://imgur.com/a/8g7DGeI']LN Volume 10 Act 1 (§ 1. The Firmament of the Gods)

Click to expand...

The Argument: This scenario provides an undeniable, quantitative proof of a system governed by jointly exhaustive logical negations. This is not a vague, narrative "balance" where opposing forces loosely compete. Instead, the universe processes existence through a rigid, hard-coded numerical invariant law.

These scans don't show logical negations. It's just yin-yang over and over again.

Really, a logical negation would be like "A tree and whatever is Not a tree", so to say, X and literally everything that is not X. A logical duality would exhaust all potential of opposition. If a tree is A, whatever is not that tree, so to say the rest of all existence, is Not A. In that way you cannot be both A and Not A, or Neither A nor Not A, without being beyond the scope of the whole framework of reality. The property of "An apple" can be applied only to apples, but the property of "Not an apple" can be applied to literally all existence that isn't an apple.

Creation and destruction is not the same, it does not cover "everything". If I place an apple on a table, it is not being created or destroyed at that moment. It is outside the relation of birth and abortion. Thus both sides of the "duality" are not always active in this case, preventing it from being a logical negation. A logical duality has to exhaust all possibilities at least within the system it operates.

Next:

III. Break One, Both Die (Absolute Complement - The Logical Boundaries of Each Other)[/B]

The ultimate proof that they are locked together is that deleting one instantly dooms the other:

So what you mean to say is this: If the order of destruction is lost, the order of creation doesn’t have long to live either.

—Anos, LN Volume 9 (§ 38. Two Sides of a Divine Coin)

Click to expand...

“The Goddess of Destruction remains as Delsgade while the Goddess of Creation perishes,” I said. “But if the Goddess of Creation perishes, Sasha will eventually vanish too."

—Anosh Polticoal, LN Volume 9 (§ 38. Two Sides of a Divine Coin)

Click to expand...

In a normal universe, if you get rid of Destruction, Creation should just grow forever without limits. But here, if Destruction is lost, Creation "doesn’t have long to live" and will "eventually vanish too." Creation cannot define its own existence without its opposite boundary. The short delay before disappearing ("eventually vanish") is just the universe’s engine overloading and lagging out before the entire system completely crashes.

Just like the macro-laws of the universe, the local rules governing life itself run on the exact same structural logic gates. The relationship between the Order of Birth (Wenzel) and the Order of Termination/Abortion (Andeluc) is not a loose thematic cycle, but a strict binary process.

Now this. This is just not the properties of a logical negation at all. Take the earlier logical negation, an apple and Not an apple. If I destroy the apple, does everything that isn't an apple get destroyed as well? No. These are thus complementary, not contradictory.

The order of the gods complemented and supported each other. Like the Goddess of Destruction and the God of Demise, and the Goddess of Creation, the Goddess of Birth, and the Heavenly Father. Just like how taking down the Goddess of Destruction didn’t completely erase destruction from the world, one god’s ruin wasn’t enough for the whole order to collapse. However, everything was now definitely further from destruction

—LN Volume 10 Act 1 (§ 25. Equis)

At the point of execution, the universe enforces a strict mechanical switch where they both cannot be true or false at the same time, yet one state must be either true or false at any given time:

“I assume that when left to operate on its own, the switch between birth and death would be activated by fulfilling some condition. It must have been time for Andeluc’s turn,”

—Anos to Wenzel, LN Volume 9 (§ 44. The World the Goddess of Creation Wished For)

Click to expand...

“When the Goddess of Birth is manifested, the Goddess of Termination cannot exist. Conversely, when the Goddess of Termination is manifested, the Goddess of Birth cannot exist. Am I right?"

—[URL='https://gyazo.com/23c848e23c5451e5e3b23d0f7b86561f']Anos to Wenzel, LN Volume 9 (§ 44. The World the Goddess of Creation Wished For)

Click to expand...

Wenzel nodded. “Even among the gods of the firmament, the two of us are special. We are two views of the same order, two sides of a single coin, two sisters that can never face each other.”

It was impossible for both goddesses to exist at the same time; just like a coin, only one side—one goddess—could be seen at any time.

—Wenzel describing Order, LN Volume 9 (§ 44. The World the Goddess of Creation Wished For)

Click to expand...

"And like a coin flipping over, when Andeluc appeared, Wenzel would disappear."

—Anos describing Wenzel & Andeluc, LN Volume 9 (§ 38. Two Sides of a Divine Coin)

Click to expand...

The text uses the literal imagery of a mechanical "switch" and a "coin" to show that the system can never resolve to a middle ground, an overlap, or a lukewarm state. When certain conditions are met, it flips to Andeluc's turn, completely toggling off Wenzel's presence. When Birth is true (A), Termination must be false (-A), and vice versa. They are perfectly synchronized opposites that completely partition the lifecycle domain.

You're claiming that one has to be always active, but I don't see the scans saying that. The coin analogy only applies to the act of creation and destruction itself, in that both cannot co-exist. That's literally the context.

It isn't however about at least one always existing.

I. The Being vs. Non-Being Binary (Creation & Destruction)[/B]

The underlying architecture of the universe leaves absolutely no room for an intermediate or third state between existing and not existing. The light novel explicitly defines the boundary parameters:

Under the order of this world, destruction is the reduction of something to nothing.

—[URL]https://imgur.com/a/xa6MkUI

Click to expand...

Because the text couples this definition by stating the Orders of Creation and Destruction are equal counterparts of a single whole, the parameters operate as an absolute reciprocal logic gate:

Creation = The absolute transition from non-being to being (A).

Destruction = The absolute transition from being to non-being (-A).

In formal logic, a domain is completely split when its parameters correspond to "Being and Non-Being" or "Existence and Non-Existence." There is no third state; a concept is either processed as existing or it is reduced to nothingness. This direct reciprocity satisfies the mathematical criteria for a flawless logical duality.

“Under the order of this world, destruction is the reduction of something to nothing. Yet before the Abolisher of Reason, which can destroy anything and everything, logic itself unravels. Thus, the effect of your blade only works up until the target is destroyed, no?” his voice echoed from the surrounding nothingness. “But the nothing left after perishing—the nothingness that is not bound by reason—that is the true form of my source.”

V8C46

Only the process of creating and destroying are encompassed by order, not the final result after the process. And those aren't logical negations. If something is already created or destroyed, that's already outside "order" (an apple, or non-being), but is an apple or nonexistence (NEP1) supposed to be nondual? No.

Next:

II. The Life vs. Non-Life Binary (Birth & Termination)

The exact same absolute division applies to the local lifecycle framework. In casual real-world language, people often call "Life and Death" opposites. However, in pure formal logic, the true negation of (Life) is simply Not (-Life) . The verse perfectly accommodates this exact formal logic distinction by separating the thematic concept of a passing (the Order of Demise) from the structural binary operator of existence:

Birth = The transition of non-being into active life.

Abortion/Termination = The transition of life back into absolute non-being.

By framing the opposite of Birth not as a downstream state like aging or dying, but as the literal prevention and erasure of birth itself, the series hard-codes the relationship as a true Life vs. Non-Life toggle.

NOTE: As stated by DontTalkDT regarding cosmological dualities being logical ones - they can be so if the verse establishes them as such. So while abstract concepts like life and death are not inherently logical dualities across fiction, they explicitly become true logical negations here because the verse verbatim defines them through absolute mutual exclusion. They are the only two possible scenarios that can occur for a particular single domain - leave zero intermediate states, cannot coexist, and they partition the entire existential domain down to a flawless binary code.

Yeah no, most of this is not in the scans. The order of life and death, or of birth and abortion, only encompasses things limited to their scope, rather than universally exhausting all possibilities.

And even then, there's literally this:

“When the Goddess of Birth is manifested, the Goddess of Termination cannot exist. Conversely, when the Goddess of Termination is manifested, the Goddess of Birth cannot exist. Am I right?"

—Anos to Wenzel, LN Volume 9 (§ 44. The World the Goddess of Creation Wished For)

Click to expand...

[URL='https://gyazo.com/23c848e23c5451e5e3b23d0f7b86561f']Wenzel nodded. “Even among the gods of the firmament, the two of us are special. We are two views of the same order, two sides of a single coin, two sisters that can never face each other.”

Click to expand...

It was impossible for both goddesses to exist at the same time; just like a coin, only one side—one goddess—could be seen at any time

Click to expand...

If they are special... why are we generalizing this relation to all complementary orders?

Anyways, a few more things. Some scans I got from here.

Order aren't opposite of each other to begin with. They are complementary, that's all. In fact, the verse already deploys another analogy to classify logical negations; it's called Chaos. Only the possibilities (particulars) participating in Order are opposites, but not the orders themselves. order of creation is not the opposite of order of destruction.

“The world is full of various orders. Life is born, deepens, meets its demise, and then changes. This is the cycle based on the order of the Four Principles. And so I ask you this, Goddess of Creation. What is the opposite of the order of destruction?”

Misha paused for a brief moment.

“The order of creation.”

“Aye, that is what I once believed. But then I realized—this was most likely incorrect. The opposite of the order of destruction isn’t the order of creation. This is because destruction and creation are two sides of the same order, and Militia and Abernyu are two sisters, two sides of a divine coin,”

Instead of using the opposite of creation, use the opposite of order. In other words, to destroy the order of creation, you use the chaos of creation. That is, if that’s even possible.”

“Aye.”

Dilfred pointed at me.

The absence of order is called chaos—this is the same thought we had. But at the same time, it’s a little different. It’s not that order is missing; it’s that chaos exists at all. If order is correct, then chaos is the wrong law of nature. And that is what your source of destruction really is.”

Hopefully someone reads this, it took me awhile to make.

Deonment · Sunday at 23:50

CongratulatorySnail399 said:
Really, a logical negation would be like "A tree and whatever is Not a tree", so to say, X and literally everything that is not X. A logical duality would exhaust all potential of opposition. If a tree is A, whatever is not that tree, so to say the rest of all existence, is Not A. In that way you cannot be both A and Not A, or Neither A nor Not A, without being beyond the scope of the whole framework of reality. The property of "An apple" can be applied only to apples, but the property of "Not an apple" can be applied to literally all existence that isn't an apple.

Creation and destruction is not the same, it does not cover "everything". If I place an apple on a table, it is not being created or destroyed at that moment. It is outside the relation of birth and abortion. Thus both sides of the "duality" are not always active in this case, preventing it from being a logical negation. A logical duality has to exhaust all possibilities at least within the system it operates.

Okay this is wrong, but is likely wrong due to a misunderstanding of the nature of logic due to the ****** way we treat and show the workings of logic, so let me clarify

Logic is typically (and generally, I for one haven't seen it applied outside of these cases) to events or propositions, never to actual existent objects, and in those cases A and ~A are for example
I arrived
I did not arrive
Not that ~A was literally any other state beyond arrival, it doesn't care about the context as to why I didn't arrive or anything else, only that I did not arrive, the Not is a negation of the proposition, not an exclusion of the original statement, that then includes everything else as a result. That's just wrong.

For the second half, and your bringing up of them not covering "everything" doesn't need to be the case, what any potential A and ~A need to do is exhaust the entirety of what the other is, they do not need to exhaust the entirety of reality, showing that they exhuast everything within reality is only support of that fact (and what I wanted from less traditional dualities when I made my comments on the duality thread). What they need to be is a property that can apply to the totality of reality, ie traditional life and death are not logical dualities due to everything that is inorganic existing, so they are not logical. What the specific orders would apply to would if they qualifed be limited dualities as required in type 1.

Honestly, I'd read through the rest of your post, but my ass is too tired rn

FriendOfTheTeaParty · Monday at 01:37

disagree for deons reasons

Dog3352 · Monday at 02:34

Deonment said:
It's close, but absolutely not enough, mainly as this quote directly says
That state of being I called out as being part of what is close is something explicitly stated to be unique to them, so whatever they state they exhibit doesn't cross scale to the rest

I wasn't even going to comment on this CRT, but this is something hard to ignore when you read everything on the blog.

This is completely wrong. Orders in general have these connections. The reason Wenzel says her orders are special even among other orders is because her orders are part of the four fundamental orders of the world, which makes them special compared to other orders. In almost every scan where duality is mentioned, it talks about the order in general.

Order was closely entangled with other order. Just like how creation couldn't exist without destruction, birth couldn't exist without death. All order served the purpose of completing the logical cycle of the world, and Ennessone disrupted that cycle. But thinking about it that way made it sound strange. Did gods, with their own individual order and will, also act as a collective order?

Deonment · Monday at 02:44

Dog3352 said:
This is completely wrong. Orders in general have these connections. The reason Wenzel says that her orders are special even among other orders is because they are part of the four fundamental orders of the world, which makes them special compared to basically 99%-98% of orders. Every time this duality is mentioned, it's about order in general, both in the explanation of the God of Death and other times.

This is on me for not bolding the other parts of the text I was speaking about when I said special, anyways.

Yes, I know that, I'm specifically speaking in reference to the part of the quoted segment speaking to about how they are "two sisters that can never face each other" and "It was impossible for both goddesses to exist at the same time; just like a coin, only one side—one goddess—could be seen at any time." which the OP was using to indicate them as being contradictions towards each other, I quoted that segment to point out how this aspect is specifically referred to as something special about them, and thus any conclusions drawn about their state should not scale to the rest of the gods, simple as that.

Embers_of_Twilight · Monday at 02:44

Deonment said:
This is genuinely just classical duality all over again lmao
Yin-Yang, Active-Passive looking ahh
Anyways, no, the closest it gets to it is with the gods of the order of abortion and order of birth not being able to manifest when the other is and whole single source, two aspects stuff, but beyond that, this is genuinely just classical duality, I'm pretty sure I could find classical taoist texts that effectively say the same thing kek.

I don't see how you still see it as Yin-Yang, when those dualities does not follow LOEM and LONC because they can co-exist in varying gradations - Yang and Yin always contains a part of each other that blends together. There is no real sharp line as to where one ends and the other starts, literally they are contrary dualities not contradicting ones.

As you yourself admit that Orders not being able to manifest when their counterpart exists is a direct adherence to LONC, they are mutually exclusive states. You can try to hand wave it as taoism on surface, but a system that enforces single source origin, mutual contingency, strict simultaneous exclusion functions purely as two truth state formal logical duality. As for "whatever else" you said don't qualify for logical negations is pretty interesting take when especially the blog has showcased how Orders partake in different aspects of logical negations. Such as being only two absolute opposites for any particular domain of event, the two binary pair giving meaning to each other's logical boundary and so on.

Deonment said:
It's close, but absolutely not enough, mainly as this quote directly says

That state of being I called out as being part of what is close is something explicitly stated to be unique to them, so whatever they state they exhibit doesn't cross scale to the rest.

This is one of the main reasons I have attached the entire scan for that specific context. Among the four fundamental order of the god's of firmament that the scan mentions - there exists Birth, depth, death and change. Anong these four Orders Birth is special as it shares the "same body" with its diametrically opposed concept, termination. It's special coz while other binary pairs like creation-destruction are one Order, each side's god still possess a body of their own.

And honestly? I can't see how you reach that conclusion despite creation and destruction section clearly portraying the same qualities and these two concepts, even though they aren't a part of god's firmament that the scan you highlighted talks about.

Deonment said:
After that, Birth and Termination aren't functional as a logical duality either. Termination, as a process pretty cleanly can only happen in relation to a birth, or conception, but honestly, that doesn't seem to be a relevant distinction here, rather than being any independent process which can manifest outside of the death of a newborn.

First you say termination following birth is not relevant...

Deonment said:
Termination can only follow Birth, which is absolutely an issue in the context of marking these as a logical duality.

Then you say it is an issue if they are following each other....ur changing the goal post in real time, huh ? I saw your reply to that funny snail named guy and you talked about two opposed forces needs to exaust 100% all of possibilities of a specific domain and yet birth and termination only following each other suddenly became an issue ?? I would like you to justify this inconsistency in your contention.

Deonment said:
A and ~A as phenomena are wholly independent of their negation beyond the obvious; if A does not exist, then ~A is absolutely capable of being true or false without issue, and vice versa, and with Termination only being capable of following Birth, then if someone is terminated as a result of said function, then both events are simultaneously true and that's a contradiction if they are A and ~A.
Coming back around to those independence statements for a second, yeah, A and ~A, while defined in relation to each other, do not actually care about the other's existential status. They only if the logic behind their opposite is them is true or false, and then they negate that and are the other state. Beyond that space doesn't care if not-space exists and vice versa lmao.

Now this part is full of dishonesty. You can't seriously say that they are independent variables lmfao. Using your logic the entire system sinks down to a total contradiction. Let's take the two opposing concepts - True and False, using your logic that even if "false" doesn't exist "True" can still functionally act as either True and False in a cycle ? The apparent contradiction is palpable - where you pressupose that "falsity" as a concept can still exist in relation to "Truth" when you actively removed that operator from the equation at the get go. If Truth can still exist independently without the existence of falsehood then exactly which logical negation system it's taking part into ?

I don't think I need to say more to this, but yea without the definition of logical indentity of a negative operator, you can't conceptualize the definition of the positive operator either. They both are mutually contingent on each other in formal logic, which is why sharing that very idea, a cosmology where two opposing forces exist, they also can't exist without the logical boundary of the other.

Deonment said:
To extend this even further, the destruction of an order is certainly a flat false upon the theoretical state of its existence, and yet eventually the other half will collapse/cease to be and similarly fall into another false state, which is another contradiction, so they just can't be.

This part is not an "extension" to your arg, respectfully. This is just another misplaced logic on the scans. When two opposite concepts like True and False gets disturbed, that is where one side perishes - that concept has logically ceased to exist to be a thing. If False itself is not a thing now, then True can never become "false" and neither can be defined as something which is "not false". What you talk about here is the entire binary system collapsing into complete null value due to missing their immediate counter parts, the null value is not "false", it's total zero. So thats a false equivalence.

Deonment said:
Beyond that the behaviour of Destruction and Creation is nowhere beyond the level of contrary dualities, so that's nothing there
And the rest really falls apart with what I've pointed out above, so it is what it is

It's pretty clearly falls in contradictory dualities as possessing identical traits as Birth and Abortion.

Dog3352 · Monday at 02:53

It's basically what Embers said. Two opposing orders not being able to "function" at the same time isn't exclusive to any specific order; in fact, before this was mentioned in relation to the Wenzel order, the same thing had already been stated about the orders of creation and destruction.

~~I had kind of forgotten that Wenzel shared the "same body" as its opposing order.~~

Embers_of_Twilight · Monday at 02:58

Dog3352 said:
It's basically what Embers said. Two opposing orders not being able to "function" at the same time isn't exclusive to any specific order; in fact, before this was mentioned in relation to the Wenzel order, the same thing had already been stated about the orders of creation and destruction.

~~I had kind of forgotten that Wenzel shared the "same body" as its opposing order.~~

I would like to correct you a bit in the phrasing, since it may create another wave of confusion. But the system of two opposing orders not being able to function simultaneously is not limited to one binary pair. It's a general requirement for all binary systems to be like that due to adhering to LONC.

But as for the "special case", yea that is because of what I said.

Embers_of_Twilight · Monday at 02:59

brb, I gotta be off for a while due to work. Meanwhile if @Ddzn and @WyX319 can take over, i would be glad.

Fixxed · Monday at 04:33

~~Even if i dislike someone steal my work~~

i have to agree with this

The birth and termination duality is clear logical contradiction here. Cause terminating is all things that is not or negate birth, and birth is a life that are not terminated, the verse even make a different between abortion/terminating and demise/death, for classical duality such as yin and yang the counter for birth is death

The verse doesnt equalized the concept of terminating and the concept of death nor demise/passing away. Logically speaking terminating/abortion is same as death of a life, but in here it is not the same thing

That mean author want to show something that strictly opposing birth it self

So terminating in here is not just a death of a life, but all things that opposing or negate the concept of birth it self

Orioreeem · Monday at 07:57

It is true that order of creation and destruction also can't manifest at the same time. It's directly stated that goddesses of creation and destruction can't ever meet so I guess this does have legs to stand on

RemaxG1 · Monday at 12:49

FriendOfTheTeaParty said:
disagree for deons reasons

I'm almost shocked you read the whole thing and came up with this conclusion. Care to yap?

Sharkass · Monday at 15:13

Agree fra

Glis · Monday at 17:52

Embers pretty much summed it up nicely. The argument that either A or ~A could stand independent of each other's existence, whether as a phenomenon or truth, just totally undermines the essence of negation.

If ~A truly is a negation, then it cannot be realized without reference to A. the expression ~A literally means "not A" for a reason. So removing A would mean there's just nothing for ~A to negate. Likewise, the truth value exhibited by A(say True or False) is inseparable from the truth value of ~A. If the proposition is true, then the opposition is false, and if the proposition is false, then the opposition is true. It's that simple. Otherwise, we would be arbitrarily labeling an independent proposition as "~A".

Though, I kinda get where the "issue" is coming from, seeing the confusion with termination following birth and the fact that the counter args reffered to termination as a "process" brought about in relation to birth which absolutely doesn't support the claim.

So I want to make it clear. Birth and Abortion are not stages in a process, and termination is definitely not something that happens only after birth. Process implies causal or sequencial progression, which we already have the fundamental principles of order(Birth>Deepening>Demise>Change) to thank for. Birth and Abortion does not fit in that category. Instead, they are functionally alternative branches of conception, where birth represents a positive outcome while termination is another. They cannot both occur simultaneously with respect to the same conception, yet niether is entrely exclusive as both concerns equal and same underlying state of affairs.

The strongest evidence we have of this distinction was with Ennesone who was practically an unborn order/concept. She existed in a state where she's not even born or aborted. She was called a "fetal source" in that way. Whether she is born or not depended on whether Wenzel(Birth) or Andeluk(Abortion) could get to her first. The fact that both concepts competes upon one subject already already implies a fundamental relationship going on between them, so if that still doesn't swat the notion of these concepts being interconnected through causal chain, then I don't know anymore man.

With that said, I agree with the thread.

Bahaha · Monday at 21:23

Glis said:
stuff

You said great things, so the fundamental question you should answer is "is a rock under birth or abortion?" When is a river born or terminated on conception. Are the orders of birth and termination open minded orders that can encompass all things, even things that aren't beings aka can't be born or aborted. For birth and abortion to be logical negations of each other then all things that can be understood by humanity must be under one of those orders.

Birth and abortion are like life and death, not logical negations of each other even tho we think of them as dualities. If anyone can show scans of what I asked then we can comfortably say these orders are logical negations in this series. However the scans have to show specifically non-being (not a person not a thinking concept not a spirit but inanimate things like a rock).

Embers_of_Twilight · Monday at 21:28

Glis said:
She existed in a state where she's not even born or aborted.

I can defo see peeps highlight this to argue the existence of "intermediate states" between abortion and birth. So I think, since you are clearing the context up anyways, better to lay out the entire scenario for why she was in that form. Was it just a state before she was just about to enter the specific domain of discourse, which be the domain of conceiving life/conception ? Or did some extraordinary thing occurred to halt her birth and stopped the event ?

Embers_of_Twilight · Monday at 21:36

Bahaha said:
Snif.

You also said great many things.
So here's an example from me, which, if you can understand this then you will end up answering your own question.

Imma take Deon's example itself and take two logically negating statements:

A / True = I arrived here.
Neg A / False = I did not arrive here.

Now within this dual domain, I inserted a scenario, where someone else on the road is standing still. Would you now question "why that person is standing still and not participating in the domain of A (which is regarding me arriving somewhere) and neg A (me not arriving somewhere). I guess that means, A and neg A aren't logical dualities since no other human being is participating in the specific domain that is limited to only specific person".

Actually how about another example, simpler one
A = The act of turning an appliance ON
Neg A = The act of turning an appliance OFF.
Can you show me how does a river turns ON and turns OFF.

Ddzn · Monday at 23:02

Embers_of_Twilight said:
I can defo see peeps highlight this to argue the existence of "intermediate states" between abortion and birth. So I think, since you are clearing the context up anyways, better to lay out the entire scenario for why she was in that form. Was it just a state before she was just about to enter the specific domain of discourse, which be the domain of conceiving life ? Or did some extraordinary thing occurred to halt her birth and stopped the event ?

Ennesuone was "created" by Militia in an unfinished life, which later on was passed onto participate in the domain of Birth and Abortion, but due to contradictory competition in two dual orders, that process was distorted.

But it was later revealed that it was because of some anomaly to her existence itself against Orders in general, so it's not because there is any intermediate states between the two concepts, just that she's in anomaly (which is a part of different argument we won't cover in this thread).

“But that would be strange,” I pointed out. “Isn’t Andeluc’s existence the opposite of yours, Wenzel? ”Wenzel thought for a moment before answering. “My order is indeed the opposite of Andeluc’s...”“Yet Ennessone’s birth defies both the Goddess of Termination and the Goddess of Birth. What could defy two opposing orders?” I said. Everyone fell silent for a few seconds. “I’m not sure... It’s possible that Ennessone is unwelcome toe very single order in existence, as though the entire world is against her birth...” Wenzel murmured. In that case Militia had been unable to return to this realm because her order of creation had rejected Ennessone’s birth. That assumption didn’t seem too far off the mark. “Are the gods more wary of Ennessone’s birth than they are of even me, the one they call a misfit?” I asked. “Yes...” Wenzel replied. - Volume 9 Chapter 28

Neverless, her remaining in an unfinished state isn't a problem. She is not participating in either. If she did participate in the binary pair and still remained half born-half terminated then it would have been an issue. She was never a part of these two dualities, so the question of a middle state doesn't begin to arise.

Robo432343 · Monday at 23:09

agree with deon sorry not sorry

Bahaha · Tuesday at 01:11

Embers_of_Twilight said:
stuff

DDT uses the rock example for life and death to showcase that life and death are not exhaustive nor mutually exclusive therefore not true logical negations of each other. True logical negations would be mutually exclusive AND exhausts all possible scenarios that can exist. You guys have proven that the order of birth and order of abortion/termination are mutually exclusive, but the fact there exists everyday objects that can't be applied using the logic of birth and abortion disproves that the order of birth and order of abortion exhausts all possible scenarios in their logic.

A = order of birth
~A = order of abortion/termination

if for a rock, A is false (aka not born) then logically it should be ~A (aborted/terminated) but that is also false which breaks this logic. In the proper logical negation, where:
A = born
~A = not born
A rock is NOT born, therefore ~A. Logically this makes sense. The fact the actual negation of born is usable, and this exhausts all scenarios, proves that your order of abortion/termination in this series is NOT the logical negation of birth.

Embers_of_Twilight said:
Actually how about another example, simpler one
A = The act of turning an appliance ON
Neg A = The act of turning an appliance OFF.
Can you show me how does a river turns ON and turns OFF.

In your example you specify "the act" and "appliance", a river is neither an appliance nor can there be any act to turn it on/off therefore a river is NOT A POSSIBLE SCENARIO in your logic. Another error is your Neg A is NOT the logical negation of A. The logical negation of A is "the act of NOT turning an appliance ON", if the river is an appliance that could be turned ON/OFF then the default state is ~A until you have turned it ON.

I haven't gone into fiction where I've seen characters with subjective reality "turn rivers on like an appliance" or stop rivers flowing by turning them off.

It would be better if you guys can prove that the order of birth and order of abortion only exists for living conceived beings. That limits the possible scenarios (like you did for the river example) but means while they would be logical negations they are NOT the duality which this wiki defines for paraconsistent physiology.

Orioreeem · Tuesday at 01:33

Can you find me a verse which has scans you ask for?

Bahaha said:
DDT uses the rock example for life and death to showcase that life and death are not exhaustive nor mutually exclusive therefore not true logical negations of each other. True logical negations would be mutually exclusive AND exhausts all possible scenarios that can exist. You guys have proven that the order of birth and order of abortion/termination are mutually exclusive, but the fact there exists everyday objects that can't be applied using the logic of birth and abortion disproves that the order of birth and order of abortion exhausts all possible scenarios in their logic.

A = order of birth
~A = order of abortion/termination

if for a rock, A is false (aka not born) then logically it should be ~A (aborted/terminated) but that is also false which breaks this logic. In the proper logical negation, where:
A = born
~A = not born
A rock is NOT born, therefore ~A. Logically this makes sense. The fact the actual negation of born is usable, and this exhausts all scenarios, proves that your order of abortion/termination in this series is NOT the logical negation of birth.

In your example you specify "the act" and "appliance", a river is neither an appliance nor can there be any act to turn it on/off therefore a river is NOT A POSSIBLE SCENARIO in your logic. Another error is your Neg A is NOT the logical negation of A. The logical negation of A is "the act of NOT turning an appliance ON", if the river is an appliance that could be turned ON/OFF then the default state is ~A until you have turned it ON.

I haven't gone into fiction where I've seen characters with subjective reality "turn rivers on like an appliance" or stop rivers flowing by turning them off.

It would be better if you guys can prove that the order of birth and order of abortion only exists for living conceived beings. That limits the possible scenarios (like you did for the river example) but means while they would be logical negations they are NOT the duality which this wiki defines for paraconsistent physiology.

Fixxed · Tuesday at 02:43

Bahaha said:
but the fact there exists everyday objects that can't be applied using the logic of birth and abortion disproves that the order of birth and order of abortion exhausts all possible scenarios in their logic.

Bruh i think you dont understand what we consider as logical duality here. Just read the page

A rose with Paraconsistent Physiology could be both red and not red, neither red nor not red or the statement "the rose is red" could have the truth value "between" which the fiction has established to be a logical truth value that is neither true nor false.

If you say it cannot be a logical duality because "there exist everyday objects that can't be applied using the logic of birth and abortion", you literally contradict what the explanation page say because there are also rose that are yellow, so red and not red should't be logical duality?

True and false are dualities, as is having and not having a property. In that way, being beyond such dualities would qualify as having Paraconsistent Physiology. More generally, existing outside of any duality where it's logically necessary to participate in one or the other would qualify.

We doesnt see the nature of duality from its object that participated in it, we see it from the nature of the property it self

As it say "logically necessary to participate", a stone does not necessarily have to participate in the properties of being born and not being born (or termination in here), it doesnt make birth and not-birth arent logical duality anymore

Like it doesnt participate in the category of life and not-life or growth and not-growth, but it not make those two arent logical duality

In their own intrinsic nature, birth and termination exhaust all possible things outside those two, but it doesnt mean it must exhaust all possible things outside itself

Embers_of_Twilight · Tuesday at 05:12

Bahaha said:
DDT uses the rock example for life and death to showcase that life and death are not exhaustive nor mutually exclusive therefore not true logical negations of each other.

And yet very interestingly, in that same comment of DDT that you used, he goes onto say at the last that Life and Death can indeed qualify as logical dualities, based on how the verse defines them (basically whether they define the two concepts in the logic of logical negations). Care to explain why would he say that ?

Bahaha said:
True logical negations would be mutually exclusive AND exhausts all possible scenarios that can exist. You guys have proven that the order of birth and order of abortion/termination are mutually exclusive, but the fact there exists everyday objects that can't be applied using the logic of birth and abortion disproves that the order of birth and order of abortion exhausts all possible scenarios in their logic.

A = order of birth
~A = order of abortion/termination

if for a rock, A is false (aka not born) then logically it should be ~A (aborted/terminated) but that is also false which breaks this logic. In the proper logical negation, where:
A = born
~A = not born
A rock is NOT born, therefore ~A. Logically this makes sense. The fact the actual negation of born is usable, and this exhausts all scenarios, proves that your order of abortion/termination in this series is NOT the logical negation of birth.

In formal logic binary pairs don't float around containing every single things in existence as a part of their domain. They all strictly follow the principle of domain of discourse, something I can tell you aren't aware about. It's as simple as any, logical negation is about one basic proposition or event branching into only two possible scenarios (A and NEG A) - and these two possible operators specifically cover 100% of all possibilities to the particular "statement or event" at hand, not everything else in the world. That is the very reason I gave you two examples, one of which you intentionally ignored that you've got nothing to answer for that ( I have arrived and I not arrive one). Just because other randoms on the road doesn't adhere to it doesn't mean that the binary system are in the wrong, it's that you have commited a massive category error. Substituting "non-birth" doesn't prove a truer negation, it just means you are expanding the phrasing to encompass inanimate objects that were never part of the system's architecture. A logical negation does not mean a concept has to encompass the entire universe; it means it must exhaust 100% of its specific Domain of Discourse. If you question "why isn't my calculator playing music, then it must not be a calculator", then it's as brain dead as it can get, as music playing was never a part of the domain of activities a calculator is supposed to execute (which would be addition, substraction, multiplication and division).

Your "not Born" alternative doesn't prove a truer negation either it just proves you are using a vague linguistic bucket that doesn't distinguish between an unborn entity waiting for a state change and an inanimate object that was never part of the domain to begin with. The moment you restrict the logic to its actual Domain of Discourse, which is conception, the gap vanishes entirely, and the duality is absolute.

Also another thing.
If i were to use your logic, then A rock not participating in Birth and Abortion would mean that the rock is now being considered a "paradoxical para consistent" existence that the world Orders can't recognise, because the rock breaks their logic. But that is entirely false as everything in the world is made of Order and follows it strictly. That's the very reason you see only few characters (main cast at that) that are considered to be "outside" of world Order and can resist it and not some random rock on the ground. So your category error of an argument doesn't work. A rock not participating between Birth and Abortion isn't an issue for the exact same reason a river not turning off or on doesn't make ON and OFF not a duality.

Bahaha said:
In your example you specify "the act" and "appliance", a river is neither an appliance nor can there be any act to turn it on/off therefore a river is NOT A POSSIBLE SCENARIO in your logic.

Aha ! I see, I see
Many many applauds on finding the core answer to your question !

Bahaha said:
Another error is your Neg A is NOT the logical negation of A. The logical negation of A is "the act of NOT turning an appliance ON", if the river is an appliance that could be turned ON/OFF then the default state is ~A until you have turned it ON.

Alright, let's change the phrasing a bit, say :
A = Appliance is in TURN ON mode.
Neg A = Appliance is in TURN OFF mode.
There you go, now Neg A represents exactly what you want (the act of not turning an appliance ON).
Now, can you show me a natural River, just by being river and not an "appliance" can still participate in TURN OFF and TURN ON mode ? Ig i already know your answer.

Bahaha said:
I haven't gone into fiction where I've seen characters with subjective reality "turn rivers on like an appliance" or stop rivers flowing by turning them off.

Then that just means fiction isn't nonsensical to claim that river can participate in the logical duality of Turn OFF / ON. Because logical dualities follow the domain of discourse. Furthermore there is no relevance in an ability that works on reality warping based effects, with a natural cosmological system running with logical partitions so I'm not sure where are you going with it.

Bahaha said:
It would be better if you guys can prove that the order of birth and order of abortion only exists for living conceived beings.

That's self explanatory.

Bahaha said:
That limits the possible scenarios (like you did for the river example) but means while they would be logical negations they are NOT the duality which this wiki defines for paraconsistent physiology.

Oh dang....Are you implying that logical negations are now divided into "types" of Logical negation, and this wiki follows another "kind" of logical negation ? Then what kind of principle would that stuff work on ? Also that brings me again to the very first question, why would DT say that Life and death can qualify as logical dualities ?

Actually I don't need you to answer, to be frank, you are acting as a master cherry-picker here. You will gladly use whatever snippet supports your narrative, all while throwing out the explicit conclusions and evidence pointing directly against you right out the window. You tried to use DT's words as a support for yourself while leaving out the portion where he talks about intermediate things like rock beings brought within the context to claim that Life Death aren't logical negations, doesn't fit in and it simply means that those intermediate beings are either artificial or undead to begin with, and thus Life and Death can become dualities as per wiki's standards if the inverse definition fits the logic.

BonjourGnome · Tuesday at 08:51

Disagree fra

ROZAN-U · Tuesday at 09:35

Yeah, the rock argument is bad. Order of birth and abortion's influence is on all living things, one governs the creation of life and source and the other governs abortion of it.
a rock isn't in its sphere of influence. If we talk about creation and existence of rock, it would primarily fall under order of Creation and destruction. Creation is responsible for existence of all things and destruction is reduction of all things into nothingness.[“Under the order of this world, destruction is the reduction of something to
nothing.- volume 8].

Embers_of_Twilight · Tuesday at 10:27

ROZAN-U said:
Snif

Wheree haaab youuuu biiiin
Aaalll maaai laifaaaa !

Jackofalltrades_1 · Tuesday at 10:58

Damn… paraconsitent args don’t tend to go well for MGK.

RemaxG1 · 2026-06-03T03:31:28+0100

ROZAN-U said:
Yeah, the rock argument is bad. Order of birth and abortion's influence is on all living things, one governs the creation of life and source and the other governs abortion of it.
a rock isn't in its sphere of influence. If we talk about creation and existence of rock, it would primarily fall under order of Creation and destruction. Creation is responsible for existence of all things and destruction is reduction of all things into nothingness.[“Under the order of this world, destruction is the reduction of something to
nothing.- volume 8].

Bruh returned from nothingness lol

Glis · 2026-06-03T03:38:09+0100

Yea, the topic about rock and river is pretty interesting, but the "criteria" is definetely shifting and narrowing down specifically on inaminate objects as the decisive case when it's not.

Sure, It's important to ask whether a rock falls under Birth or Abortion, or even whether a river can be considered born or terminated. However, that line of reasoning only works if we are treating Birth and Abortion as concepts that apply exclusively to biological and material domains. In this case, the order of Birth and Abortion are fundamental concepts that govern reality itself. So the influence stretches beyond ordinary living beings and reaches even to Sources, fellow Gods, entities that are niether biological nor even conventionally alive. Gods are literally embodiments of abstract principles, yet are subject to Birth and Termination. That implies that the relevant domain is not strictly limited to life in a biological or material sense. So instead of:

A - Rock/River is Born
~A - Rock/River is not Born

The more fitting and relevant question would be whther:

A - Order of Rock/River is Born
~A - Order of Rock/River is not Born

And afaik, it's already a pretty well established fact that every concievable thing in this work's worldview is ultimately rooted in an Order. If something exist, then there is an Order that governs its existence and allows it to function. If those Orders themselves ade subject to states of either Birth and Abortion, then restricting the discussion to material things discredits the metaphysical scope these concepts are shown to possess.

No matter how you see it, the existence of a rock and river is not an evidence of something existing outside the domain of these fundamental principles, it's far to narrow form such an interpretation with simply that as a basis. I mean, if you really want to say that Birth and Abortion are not universally exhaustive, then it would first need to show the Order underlying that rock falls under niether Birth or Abortion.

Which isnt the case, because we know exactly what being niether Birth or Abortion implies in this series' context.

In other words, Ennessone’s order is one that defies the Goddess of Birth’s
order, but will also make the world kinder,” I summarized.

“I can’t even imagine what kind of order that would be,” Sasha mumbled

“The Goddess of Termination’s duty is to prevent births that can disturb the order of this world, right?”

Wenzel answered my question with a nod. “Yes, exactly.”

“But that would be strange,” I pointed out. “Isn’t Andeluc’s existence the opposite of yours, Wenzel?”

Wenzel thought for a moment before answering.

“My order is indeed the opposite of Andeluc’s...”

“Yet Ennessone’s birth defies both the Goddess of Termination and the
Goddess of Birth. What could defy two opposing orders?” I said.

Everyone fell silent for a few seconds.

“I’m not sure... It’s possible that Ennessone is unwelcome to every single order in existence, as though the entire world is against her birth...” Wenzel murmured.

The fact that the Goddess of Birth herself cannot explain an existence outside Birth and Abortion suggests that such a state is abnormal in every sense of word. If something truly outside the exhaustive domain of Birth/Abortion is common and expected, then they wouldn't be stuck for answer. They could say "a rock" or "a river", and it would have qualified as niether Birth or Abortion. Yet, the immediate conlusion that the Goddess of Birth arrived was not "Oh, this Order just happens to be outside our dichitomy, like some others", but rather, "Ennesone might possibly be an anomaly rejected by all Order"..

Notice how she's instantly treated as a systematic anomaly instead of just a local exception to Birth and Termination's area of influence? Probably because Birth and Abortion form a perfect exhaustive state on standard reality, so something not participating in either must mean that it's not your standard order.

This idea is further reinforced when in the same conversation it says:

All orders served the purpose of completing the logical cycle of the world, and Ennessone disrupted that cycle.

Orders are all intricately tied to each other in some way, which is why no single order can exist on it's own . There's no Order that is completely exclusive to the other. Creation and Birth may have different subjects or domains, but there's no indication that they couldn't overlap. Same as other Orders. Together they form a logical cycle, so are the things governed to them.

That's how I interpret things at the very least based on the evidence presented. Until an argument actually challenging Birth and Abortion's applicability shows up, then I wouldn't really consider rocks and rivers as a big issue.

Maou Gakuin upgrade : Orders as Logical negations !!?

Similar threads